Bo‘lajak maxsus pedagoglarning faol fuqarolik kompetensiyasining tarkibiy-mezonli modeli va rivojlanganlik darajalari
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21697641Ключевые слова:
bo‘lajak maxsus pedagog, faol fuqarolik kompetensiyasi, kasbiy-inklyuziv faoliyat, komponent, mezon, indikator, rivojlanganlik darajasi, autentik baholash, raqamli dalil.Аннотация
Maqolada bo‘lajak maxsus pedagoglarning faol fuqarolik kompetensiyasini kasbiy-inklyuziv vazifalar bilan
bog‘liq holda operatsionallashtiruvchi tarkibiy-mezonli model ishlab chiqilgan. Nazariy tahlil, kompetensiyalarni xaritalash
va pedagogik loyihalash asosida fuqarolik-huquqiy, motivatsion-qadriyatli, faoliyatli-ishtirokiy, raqamli-kommunikativ
hamda refleksiv-professional komponentlar ajratildi. Har bir komponent “mazmun – funksiya – kuzatiladigan indikator
– raqamli dalil” zanjiri orqali tavsiflandi. Boshlang‘ich, bazaviy, faol-amaliy va tashabbuskor-transformativ darajalarning
yagona deskriptorlari taklif qilindi. Baholashda bilim testi, vaziyatli yechim, keys va loyiha mahsuli, raqamli materialning
foydalanish imkoniyati, hamkorlikdagi individual hissa, elektron portfolio hamda refleksiv dalillarni birlashtirish zarurligi
asoslandi. Model faol fuqarolikni umumiy ma’naviy sifat yoki alohida raqamli ko‘nikma emas, balki inson huquqlari,
inklyuziv ishtirok va kasbiy javobgarlikni amaliy vaziyatda uyg‘unlashtiradigan integrativ kompetensiya sifatida o‘lchash
imkonini beradi.
Библиографические ссылки
1. O‘zbekiston Respublikasi Konstitutsiyasi. Yangi tahrir. 2023-yil 30-aprel.
2. O‘zbekiston Respublikasining “Ta’lim to‘g‘risida”gi Qonuni. O‘RQ–637-son1, 2020-yil 23-sentabr.
3. O‘zbekiston Respublikasining “Nogironligi bo‘lgan shaxslarning huquqlari to‘g‘risida”gi Qonuni. O‘RQ–641-son2, 2020-
yil 15-oktabr.
4. O‘zbekiston Respublikasining “Nogironlar huquqlari to‘g‘risidagi konvensiyani ratifikatsiya qilish haqida”gi Qonuni.
O‘RQ–695-son3, 2021-yil 7-iyun.
5. United Nations. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. New York: United Nations, 2006.
6. Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. General Comment No. 4 (2016) on the Right to Inclusive Education.
CRPD/C/GC/4. Geneva: United Nations, 2016.
7. UNESCO. Global Citizenship Education: Topics and Learning Objectives. Paris: UNESCO, 2015.
8. Council of Europe. Reference Framework of Competences for Democratic Culture. Vols. 1–3. Strasbourg: Council of
Europe, 2018.
9. Westheimer J., Kahne J. What Kind of Citizen? The Politics of Educating for Democracy // American Educational
Research Journal. 2004. Vol. 41, No. 2. P. 237–269. DOI: 10.3102/00028312041002237.
10. Choi M. A Concept Analysis of Digital Citizenship for Democratic Citizenship Education in the Internet Age // Theory &
Research in Social Education. 2016. Vol. 44, No. 4. P. 565–607. DOI: 10.1080/00933104.2016.1210549.
11. Choi M., Glassman M., Cristol D. What It Means to Be a Citizen in the Internet Age: Development of a Reliable and Valid
Digital Citizenship Scale // Computers & Education. 2017. Vol. 107. P. 100–112. DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2017.01.002.
12. Jones L. M., Mitchell K. J. Defining and Measuring Youth Digital Citizenship // New Media & Society. 2016. Vol. 18, No.
9. P. 2063–2079. DOI: 10.1177/1461444815577797.
13. Biggs J., Tang C. Teaching for Quality Learning at University. 4th ed. Maidenhead: Open University Press, 2011.
14. Pantić N., Florian L. Developing Teachers as Agents of Inclusion and Social Justice // Education Inquiry. 2015. Vol. 6,
No. 3. Article 27311. DOI: 10.3402/edui.v6.27311.
15. Florian L., Spratt J. Enacting Inclusion: A Framework for Interrogating Inclusive Practice // European Journal of Special
Needs Education. 2013. Vol. 28, No. 2. P. 119–135. DOI: 10.1080/08856257.2013.778111.
16. European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education. Profile of Inclusive Teachers. Odense: European
Agency, 2012.
17. Messick S. Validity of Psychological Assessment // American Psychologist. 1995. Vol. 50, No. 9. P. 741–749. DOI:
10.1037/0003-066X.50.9.741.
18. Kane M. T. Validating the Interpretations and Uses of Test Scores // Journal of Educational Measurement. 2013. Vol.
50, No. 1. P. 1–73. DOI: 10.1111/jedm.12000.
19. Nicol D. J., Macfarlane-Dick D. Formative Assessment and Self-Regulated Learning: A Model and Seven Principles
of Good Feedback Practice // Studies in Higher Education. 2006. Vol. 31, No. 2. P. 199–218. DOI:
10.1080/03075070600572090.
20. Boud D., Molloy E. Rethinking Models of Feedback for Learning: The Challenge of Design // Assessment & Evaluation
in Higher Education. 2013. Vol. 38, No. 6. P. 698–712. DOI: 10.1080/02602938.2012.691462.
21. Eynon B., Gambino L. M. High-Impact ePortfolio Practice. Sterling, VA: Stylus Publishing, 2017.
22. Ferguson R. Learning Analytics: Drivers, Developments and Challenges // International Journal of Technology
Enhanced Learning. 2012. Vol. 4, No. 5/6. P. 304–317. DOI: 10.1504/IJTEL.2012.051816.
23. CAST. Universal Design for Learning Guidelines, Version 3.0. Wakefield, MA: CAST, 2024.
24. World Wide Web Consortium. Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.2. W3C Recommendation. 2023.
Загрузки
Опубликован
Выпуск
Раздел
Лицензия
Copyright (c) 2026 MAKTABGACHA VA MAKTAB TA’LIMI JURNALI
Это произведение доступно по лицензии Creative Commons «Attribution» («Атрибуция») 4.0 Всемирная.
